Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution


I believe there are a wide variety of reasons behind the acceptance of evolution. The layman's double standard probably holds true for a vast majority who simply rely on scientists. Others have different reasons. Even scientists have their own reasons. This chapter will try to touch on some of these reasons.


When emotionally involved, the human mind is susceptible to perceiving the illogical as logical. That is, an emotionally charged situation -- the pursuit of monetary gain, a desire for physical gratification, or something as simple as seeking the thrill and excitement of an emotional high -- can cause logic or reality to become distorted. This is evident in the way we try criminals. There is a difference in the way our criminal system handles a premeditated murder and one which was committed in the heat of the moment. Society sees the first as a cold-blooded, heartless act; the second as an act by a (perhaps, temporarily) disturbed individual. Although both are serious offenses, what makes the cold-blooded type worse is that such an individual can commit the act in a normal state of mind, while the latter might not have committed such a severe act under normal circumstances. It's this latter type which shows, in whatever extreme manner, that reality or logic can indeed become distorted under emotional upheaval.

The same process -- an emotionally induced distortion of reality -- takes place in situations where the emotions may not be that obvious. The term used for this -- especially in government -- is "conflict of interest." Some people in high office or in the judiciary system are barred from being personally involved in areas which may somehow be related to their posts. If anyone considered these individuals dishonest, either they would not have been appointed to their posts in the first place or they'd be removed on the basis of such doubts. Barring them from certain personal involvements is a precaution against their judgement being influenced by emotions. Sometimes such strong emotions simply distort reality, at other times they cause outright dishonesty. Either way, the result can be an emotionally induced state which lacks honest and objective evaluation.


This, I believe, is the process which allows some laymen to accept evolution. The kind of media exposure often given to the theory and the scientists who perpetuate it, giving the impression that believing in evolution is perhaps "in" or "with it" and anything else is "living in the past," gives the theory a certain aura of excitement and attraction which appeals to many who are simply looking to be "in." And when evolution has all this going for it, it really doesn't take much "logic" to be convincing -- acceptance of the theory is based more on an image rather than on irrefutable facts. Consequently, there is very little logic which can do a good job of "unconvincing," because to these people it was never a "logical" issue to begin with.


Although also susceptible to the above emotions, a scientist sometimes has additional reasons or incentives for "believing" in or perpetuating the belief in evolution. These reasons or incentives are as follows:


Bureaucracy is as widespread as it is self-defeating. It certainly has nothing to do with efficient and logical decision making. Yet, in some of the most powerful organizations it just about dictates policy. Many agencies within the U.S. and local governments have bureaucracies in motion which work to the obvious and blatant detriment of their objectives. But these bureaucracies exist in spite of this. Why? Aren't these people intelligent enough to know that "the system" isn't working?

Obviously, knowing something isn't working isn't enough to prompt change in some cases. Without any logical or moral justifications, the simple business of being comfortable with the way things are is enough for some individuals to avoid change. Are scientists above this type of behavior?


From a moral standpoint, I don't believe scientific endeavors are any different from other professions. If you found out that the head of some large corporation was falsifying data for profit or favors, mismanaging funds, or skimming money off a pension fund, would it shock you? Would it shock you if these accusations were directed at a union official? How about a politician? How about the President himself? Unfortunately, we've seen it all, and most people today would not be terribly shocked. But, strangely, a good number of people would find it quite alarming to discover that a scientist had been dishonest or fraudulent for profit, to further his career, or to gain recognition among his peers or the general public. Why? Are scientists made of some sort of higher moral fiber than the rest of society? Perhaps they should be. But are they?


Although premiums for just about every type of liability insurance have soared to unprecedented heights in recent years, few, if any, have risen as dramatically as those of physicians. These high premiums have literally driven many doctors out of business. Seemingly unrelated to our topic at first glance, this may ultimately be a direct result of the same kind of shrugging off of moral responsibilities which I believe is prevalent within scientific circles.

The high insurance premiums, of course, are largely the result of an increase in successful malpractice law suits against physicians. The question is, why are such law suits so common and so successful today? Are patients getting smarter, realizing there's a buck to be made by someone else's mistake? Are physicians more negligent? Or, is neither one the prime cause, and the situation can be attributed to a breakdown in the ethical standards which governed most doctor-patient relationships in the past?

I believe it is mainly the result of a deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. Years ago, a doctor was a friend of the family. Running over to a patient's house at an off hour to render medical services was not uncommon. Combining his profession with a genuine concern for people was a doctor's trade mark. A consuming desire for money and prestige, if it existed, was certainly not obvious.

When a doctor erred in diagnosing a patient and administered the wrong treatment, the idea of suing "a friend" seemed almost immoral. How do you sue someone who was genuinely concerned about your health? I know of a doctor who years ago killed a child by injecting him with penicillin, not realizing the child was allergic to it. The family never sued. By today's standards, not suing for negligence under such circumstances would be incomprehensible. But, apparently, that's the way it was. Patients were more tolerant because doctors were generally more dedicated.

How are things different today? Or is that a stupid question?

For starters, most doctors today don't know how to spell "house calls." Just hearing the phrase sends many of them into traumatic shock and convulsions. This is probably the strongest gauge of how drastically the profession has changed. I refuse to believe that doctors of years gone by were not intelligent enough to understand that in the time they spent travelling from house to house they could have made more money by having their patients come to their offices. Apparently, it was a higher regard for their patient's health than for their own pockets which made doctors of old what they were. Needless to say, that feeling of closeness between doctor and patient is all but gone. The human element has vanished, and, in most cases, it's turned into nothing but a business. Most doctors today are seen by their patients as having the same interest in money and prestige as the rest of society and are not seen as personal friends.

Then, add to this the overall moral deterioration of today's society in general, and you're left with a lot of "throat grabbing." There is simply less to restrain a patient today from proceeding with a law suit at the slightest error on the part of a doctor than there was years ago. The doctor holds no special place in the patient's heart, because the patient holds no special place in the doctor's heart. Suing a businessman (the doctor) for shoddy workmanship is not immoral. And even if it were, today's society wouldn't be all that concerned with it anyway. Then, when a case goes to court, the jury, usually consisting of common folks, sees the doctor no differently than the patient does. So, we inevitably wind up with not only many malpractice law suits but also many successful ones.

Of course, you might spend hours arguing whether doctors have the same "right" to be as greedy and as morally lax as the rest of society, or, because of the nature of their profession, should maintain higher moral standards. Then, your answer might be something like, being greedy or morally lax is not a "right" -- it's a disease. You might also add that the staggeringly high number of malpractice law suits may be a sign that doctors should return to the dedication and concern of old. But such a discussion is beyond the scope of this book. The point here is that years ago doctors did have that stronger moral fiber. Today, many apparently don't.

Now, if greed and moral deterioration have changed the face of the medical profession, the most sacred of all, how can anyone honestly believe that any profession is totally free of such unethical deviations. It is apparently a sign of the times. The medical profession is probably nothing more than a symptom of our ethically ailing society. It is hard to imagine that scientists could be immune to this epidemic.


Strangely, what may be the strongest motive in some cases, for scientists and laymen alike, to accept or perpetuate evolution, is probably the most difficult to explain -- a fanatical determination, lacking any apparent personal gain, to believe that our universe is simply not governed by a Supreme Being.

The emotional process involved in such a strong determination, I believe, is probably not unlike that of some fanatical cult movements, although cult movements are usually of a more extreme nature. Under such circumstances, misguided ideals gain momentum largely as a result of strong personal motives and inclinations rather than levelheaded logic. Belonging to fanatical cults has driven many to the extreme of suicide. When such a strong drive takes hold of an individual, what the average person sees as objective reasoning ceases to play an important role in this individual's thinking. And if such a drive happens to be the root of a belief in evolution, to what avail are disproofs? We're dealing with a strong psychological drive, not a scientific endeavor.

Please note that I am not suggesting that scientists must be guilty of error or deception merely because the possibility exists. Given the fact that evolution does not hold up under scrutiny, as pointed out in this and other publications, the error or deception is obvious. I am merely laying out some of the possible causes.